G.R. No.

127325 March 19, 1997

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

FACTS:
The heart of this controversy stemmed from a petition banking on the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987
Constitution. Herein private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent, COMELEC a "Petition to
Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative".
After the hearing, petitioners herein filed their opposition to the said proposed amendment. The petitioners filed a
special civil action for prohibition raising among others that R.A. No. 6735 providing three systems of initiative,
namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation, failed to provide any subtitle on initiative
on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and
Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's initiative to amend the Constitution was left
to some future law. Further, the people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof.
Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative.
Respondents,filed their Comment on the petition, therein arguing among others that, R.A no. 6735, the law which
governs the conduct of initiative to amend the Constitution, is the enabling law implementing the power of people
initiative to propose amendments to the constitution. The absence therein of a subtitle for such initiative is not fatal,
since subtitles are not requirements for the validity or sufficiency of laws.
Additionally, the lifting of the limitation on the term of office of elective officials provided under the 1987
constitution is not a "Revision" Of the constitution. It is only an amendment. "Amendment envisages an alteration of
one or a few specific provisions of the constitution. Revision contemplates a re-examination of the entire document to
determine how and to what extent it should be altered." The proposed initiative merely seeks to alter only a few
specific provisions of the Constitution, or more specifically, only those which lay term limits. It does not seek to
reexamine or overhaul the entire document.

ISSUE:

Whether or not R.A. 6735 is an enabling law for Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution,
implementing the power of people initiative to propose amendments to the constitution.

HELD:
No, R.A. 6735 is an not an enabling law implementing the power of people initiative to propose amendments to
the constitution.
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution providing the right of the people to propose amendment to the
constitution is not self-executory, given that the Congress shall have to provide for the implementation of the exercise
of such right. Bluntly stated, while the Constitution has recognized or granted the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not
provide for its implementation.
While it is that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to
the Constitution. R.A. No. 6735 does not fully comply with the power and duty of Congress to provide for the
implementation of the exercise of the right. A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative answer. While R.A. No.
6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum
on national and local legislation thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally, to do so on the
system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading of the more important or the paramount system of initiative. RA.
No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely
paying it a reluctant lip service.
The foregoing brings thus to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Insofar as initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in
subordinate legislation.